TWO mysteries have shrouded the deaths of five Australia-based newsmen,
killed while reporting the Indonesian attack on the East Timorese town of
Balibo 31 years ago.Tom Hyland is The Sunday Age's International Editor

The first ­ the broad circumstances of the killings ­ has largely
been resolved, most recently by witness testimony to East Timor's
Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation.

In summary, Indonesian officers knew the five were there before they
attacked; the five clearly identified themselves as being from Australia;
and the five were deliberately killed by Indonesian troops who then burnt
their bodies.

The second mystery ­ how much Australian intelligence agencies knew
about the killings ­ is more enduring.

It is an uncertainty that has compounded the suffering of the dead
men's families and raised suspicion about the willingness of Australian
authorities to cover up the murder of Australian citizens and Australian
residents.

A Sydney inquest into the death of one of the five is the latest
attempt to solve that mystery. In February, it is due to hear testimony
from two former government lawyers, George Brownbill and Ian Cunliffe, who
were on the staff of the Hope Royal Commission into the intelligence
services when they visited the Defence Signals Directorate listening
station near Darwin in 1977.

They say a DSD officer showed them the text of an intercepted
Indonesian military signal, which stated, in effect, that the five had
been killed on orders from Jakarta.

While Brownbill and Cunliffe may be credible, their evidence can be
dismissed as hearsay unless the cable still exists. If it doesn't, the
question is who destroyed it and why? If it does, the question is, will
the Government release it?

Early signs are not promising. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has
already indicated it is unlikely any classified material will be released.

There are three possible arguments for this secrecy. One is that
release would compromise our intelligence-gathering methods. If this ever
held weight, it doesn't now. The Indonesians knew then, and know now, that
DSD listens to their communications. A second argument ­ that release of
the intelligence could jeopardise relations with Jakarta ­ is equally
untenable. After all, Jakarta's generals masterminded the destruction of
East Timor in 1999, indifferent to warnings from Australia that the extent
of their complicity was known in detail to Australian intelligence.

A third rationale ­ that release of the information would reveal the
scope of the Indonesian conspiracy to win control of East Timor and our
connivance in an illegal invasion that officials believed was in our
national interests ­ was morally and strategically questionable at the
time and is untenable now. The inescapable conclusion, as veteran Timor
watcher Jim Dunn puts it, is that "the continuing cover-up is more
about honour amongst thieves than pragmatism".